🚀 go-pugleaf

Name withheld by request wrote:
> 
> In article <355601...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Robert and Frances Egan  <nospam_...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Wow. The DL on this list just keeps growing.
> >
> >The folks of rec.org.mensa, sci.skeptic, sci.astrology, and
> >misc.survivalism already know where I stand on this issue. They should
> >probably stop reading now......
> >
> >David. I can certainly appreciate your point of view. I can even
> >understand it. But I must inform you that it is not shared by those
> >responsible for insuring the public's safety. If you don't believe this
> >claim, I can supply you with dozens of news stories confirming it.
> >
> >David B. Greene wrote:
> >>
> >> This is of course bullshit.  It is just a scare tactic for programmers
> >> to LOOT the public purse.
> >
> >Actually, Dave, the government can't really afford to pay programmer's
> >out of the public purse. They are becoming too expensive as private
> >companies hire them to fix this "bullshit".
> >
> >> Already Y2K checks and fixes are being implemented.
> >
> >But why? If this is ""bullshit", fixes shouldn't be needed.
> >
> >> If there was a big problem our economy would already be
> >> tweaking by now as computer systems are now scheduling activities into
> >> the next millenium.  So far the problems have been minor.
> >
> >But problems have already occurred. I have already supplied URLs for a
> >few of them to some these newsgroups. They have been minor because very
> >few things look that far into the future. But you can expect
> >(statistically) that the frequency will increase as 12/31/99 approaches
> >and more things look past it. As these minor problems affect more and
> >more people, they may suddenly seem less minor.
> >
> >>
> >> I might add that anything making it more difficult for the Feds to
> >> retrieve archived information on the citizens of this country would be
> >> a welcome step towards electronic privacy.
> >>
> >> Dave Greene
> >
> >I suppose you have a point there. Though I am a little concerned that
> >the government may react to this loss of control by declaring martial
> >law. So let's hope they do keep things under control, because I for one
> >don't want to live under martial law.
> >
> >
> >Cheers
> >Robert Egan
> >--
> >To reply by email: nospam_allowed ==> egan263
> 
> Their is no such thing as martial law in the Constitution.  It is
> really a misnomer, and is something a militray commander uses --
> by force of arms -- to restore order; when civil authority has
> broken down.
Can I just jump into this debate here. There are problems with Y2K
compliance, and furthermore some pretty important systems are likely to
fail because date errors will send the software up untested conditional
branches to untrapped errors, causing unpredictable problems. The worst
hit are likely to be complex software systems that were never
exhaustively system tested to ensure that the components worked properly
together. One of these is the satellite tracking system formerly known
as Navstar.

The consequence of this is as follows. On December 31st 1999 at midnight
it will not be safe to:
a) Get in an airliner or 
b) go deep sea fishing
It will be safe to
a) Steal a yacht
b) Steal a Mercedes
c) Launch an all out nuclear attack on the USA(Yippeee!!!!!)