This message was sent to me by Bruce Beach in a private e-mail. I am posting it here with his permission. ----------------------------

The discussion about whether the Beach Bug is actually a clock, reminds me of a story of a fellow who took one of the first electronic dial watches to a jeweler many years ago. When the customer returned to the jeweler he was told that he had been ripped off because when the jeweler had opened the case he had found no works inside.

All time keeping pieces do not look the same. There are water clocks and candle clocks. Hardware clocks and software clocks. I carefully denoted in my article that this clock did not have a tick, or even a beat, such as the system clock. Perhaps the term "virtual clock" would have pleased some, but undoubtedly not others.

Nevertheless, there are knowledgeable critics, such as Jerry B. and Peter de Jager who have clearly understood what I am talking about, and although they would raise up a straw man of literalism about the term, the problem remains.

But they don't have to worry about people finding the bug, - the Beach Bug will find them. Each week, I now receive case reports from those who have actually found the bug, or rather have had the bug find them, to their surprise and chagrin. As one respondent pointed out, its rarity is not an issue, because its occurrence can be a calamity.

I have particularly not responded to Peter de Jager, (although I have written a response) because he said his article was Part I of a two part article, and I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.

How strange is human thought. Ideas often go through the same stages:

a. It is nonsense, impossible, or crazy. b. It is not original, new or significant. c. Everybody knows that.

With the Internet we make the circle much more quickly than we used to. While few understand or know of the Beach Bug now, it may be that in the future (not many months now) that engineers will reply (when asked why systems they supposedly checked have failed), "Bitten by the Beach Bug". As Gary North has said, "They may not prepare, but they won't forget".

As I would say to Peter, "Have patience, it is but a short wait, we can all laugh at me then - if I am wrong".

-- Nancy (Nancymath@aol.com), July 07, 1999

Answers

Nancy, this is the same guy who buries school busses underground for a shelter against the end of the world - in Canada yet. (Why not do it in Costa Rica - cheap land and its warmer.) The same guy who stranded a bunch of Canadian students in another country when he was doing a multi-million dollar round the world tour.

His record is not impressive. Nobody is going to laugh at him - because nobody is listening.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.

"Nobody is listening to him". You should know as well as anyone PD. Aren't you the guy who would defend and make excuses for the likes of Stephen Poole? Funny, I can't hear you, perhaps I'm not listening to people of your caliber.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 07, 1999.

The Beach bug is kind of like the box of old files that your grandmother stored up in the attic when grandpa passed away in 1955 that you have never looked at. No one knows what is in the box. Your son starts digging through the papers and finds an old stock certificate for the ____ computing corporation, does some digging and finds out that the company is now called (Xerox, IBM or whatever) and that the stock is worth $500,000. That would be a pleasant surprise. Unfortunately, the beach bug will turn out to be a most unpleasant surprise with disasterous consequences. Gary North called this one of the most significant recent discoveries. Since numerous programs add on these basic programs without understanding the operation of these basic chips, it is the height of folly to ignore them and to blow smoke. An expert tells the world and the world shoots the messinger as usual. Like the watchmaker said, there ain't no clock in that watch case. He just didn't see it.

-- Curly (Curly@notstupid.gom), July 07, 1999.

Bruce Beach is the GREATEST! Seems to be a lot of powerful people in his camp, on this issue.

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), July 07, 1999.

As I posted recently, I talked to a senior engineer at a Tier One automotive stamping facility in Southwestern Michigan.

Call them whatever you like, but he stated flatly that he had found, by "reverse engineering" down to the individual chip level, internal clocks or programming or whatever that was not utilized by the main programs of the controls systems that none the less would have shut the controls systems down on 01/01/2000.

We will know for sure all too soon.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), July 07, 1999.

I find it very interesting that Paul Davis has been irrationally upset with this whole Bruce Beach theory. I noticed that when it first was published a couple months back that Davis jumped on it with both feet. I also noticed that Davis was very unpleasant and boorish in his attempted put down of Beach. Since then, many knowledgeable people within the IT field, with credentials equal to or better than Davis, have conceded that Beach "could" be correct. That is all it takes. When other "experts" admit there is indeed a possible black hole waiting in some chips, then catastrophic failure is possible. One wonders at such vitriolic attack by Davis. Now, he even attempts to discredit Beach the man, entirely apart from the clock theory. Personally, after seeing the various Davis posts, I now put him in the same camp as Poole and that crowd of "debunkers." Untrustworthy. And speaking more from fear than from facts.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), July 07, 1999.

Paul Davis said:

"this is the same guy who buries school busses underground for a shelter "

Oh I see. People that do this kind of thing are nuts, but when governments do it ($23 million command center on 23rd floor in NYC, $13 million dollar underground bunker in SF, locomotive sized generators in DC, etc. etc. etc.) they are "prudent". Could you be any more stupid, Paul?

-- (@ .), July 07, 1999.

Nancy, The fundamental problem with Beach's "Secondary clock" is that it is not a clock at all.

Excerpts from Beach2.htm (My italics)

4. An Improved Definition of The Beach Bug

Still, what needed to be more clearly stated is that the reason that the Secondary Clock is not visible is because it does not request or display a time. And I needed to go on and state more definitively, although I did show by examples, that there does not need to even be a RTC associated with the embedded processor, in order for the Beach Bug to be present. This has led to what is now perhaps a still better definition of the Beach Bug and the Secondary Clock. (And I look forward, with the help of friends and critics, to defining it still better).

The Beach Bug (Secondary Clock Century Problem) is a two digit Century Code problem, that is present in some embedded microprocessor Firmware Code and may be related to RTC usage, but can also be present without a RTC.

(snip)

How the Beach Bug is created

There are various mechanisms by which the Beach Bug may have been initially introduced into a system.

1. The main mechanism discussed in the original presentation was that the clock access can be programmed into a program stored in a ROM or EPROM. The documentation of this fact may be lost in a hierarchy of "black boxes" that are assembled into larger and larger integrated systems. Thus it is that some device may give no indication that it is using a RTC but it may nevertheless be.

2. Similarly, there are programs developed for ASICS, (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) that have their own RTC built in.

3. There are microprocessors that have their own RTC built right into them. For a sample list see:

Motorola Chips that are not Y2K compliant

4. There may be programs in any of 1 or 2 above that access RTC,s in external systems of which they are a part.

5. The embedded processor may just be repeatedly capturing date information from a data stream with which it associated and may be processing that data without ever accessing a RTC.

End of excerpts.

The bottom line is that he confuses clocks with program code that processes date and/or time information. Such program code does not constitute a clock of any kind, secondary or otherwise. Such program code can indeed have Y2K problems, but when it does, it is simply another instance of the Y2K bug, not some newly discovered kind of clock.

The ambiguity of his terminology in his April 9 paper led some readers to guess at what he meant, and some may have expressed support of what they guessed that he meant. Beach2.htm quotes "supporting" comments, but it is clear that those comments to not resolve his confusion between clocks and program code that processes date and/or time information.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), July 07, 1999.

Let's try again with the italics this time.

The fundamental problem with Beach's "Secondary clock" is that it is not a clock at all.

Excerpts from Beach2.htm (My italics)

4. An Improved Definition of The Beach Bug

Still, what needed to be more clearly stated is that the reason that the Secondary Clock is not visible is because it does not request or display a time. And I needed to go on and state more definitively, although I did show by examples, that there does not need to even be a RTC associated with the embedded processor, in order for the Beach Bug to be present. This has led to what is now perhaps a still better definition of the Beach Bug and the Secondary Clock. (And I look forward, with the help of friends and critics, to defining it still better).

The Beach Bug (Secondary Clock Century Problem) is a two digit Century Code problem, that is present in some embedded microprocessor Firmware Code and may be related to RTC usage, but can also be present without a RTC.

(snip)

How the Beach Bug is created

There are various mechanisms by which the Beach Bug may have been initially introduced into a system.

1. The main mechanism discussed in the original presentation was that the clock access can be programmed into a program stored in a ROM or EPROM. The documentation of this fact may be lost in a hierarchy of "black boxes" that are assembled into larger and larger integrated systems. Thus it is that some device may give no indication that it is using a RTC but it may nevertheless be.

2. Similarly, there are programs developed for ASICS, (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) that have their own RTC built in.

3. There are microprocessors that have their own RTC built right into them. For a sample list see:

Motorola Chips that are not Y2K compliant

4. There may be programs in any of 1 or 2 above that access RTC,s in external systems of which they are a part.

5. The embedded processor may just be repeatedly capturing date information from a data stream with which it associated and may be processing that data without ever accessing a RTC.

End of excerpts.

The bottom line is that he confuses clocks with program code that processes date and/or time information. Such program code does not constitute a clock of any kind, secondary or otherwise. Such program code can indeed have Y2K problems, but when it does, it is simply another instance of the Y2K bug, not some newly discovered kind of clock.

The ambiguity of his terminology in his April 9 paper led some readers to guess at what he meant, and some may have expressed support of what they guessed that he meant. Beach2.htm quotes "supporting" comments, but it is clear that those comments to not resolve his confusion between clocks and program code that processes date and/or time information.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), July 07, 1999.

Jerry,

I don't think the "ambiguity" that has troubled you was a problem for many experts that signed in with their concession that Beach's theory is certainly possible. It may confuse you, it didn't confuse numerous others.

And, certainly Beach is not confused about what he is talking about. Again I say, it may confuse you, it wasn't confusing Beach. You really sound like you are in the Davis group on this. You are not going to believe it no matter how many other experts say it's a plausible theory.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), July 07, 1999.

To anyone who has ever had to reverse engineer a motherboard for the purposes of troubleshooting some of the more complexed malfuntions it is very apparent that some embedded designs contained hidden firmware that is propietary to the vendor and the vendors wont give up any info on it even when pressed. A competition thing. That hidden firmware that operates certain instructions will I repeat will cause cause y2k problems. If you are buying parts from vendors to bring your systems into compience get it in writting that all chips in the boards you are buying are certified compient. If they wont put it in writing dont buy. Buyer beware.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @ conservation . com), July 07, 1999.

Gordon,

I'm not "in the Davis group" on this or anything else. :-)

If any "experts" regard Beach's "secondary clock" as plausible, perhaps they can describe it better than beach2.htm does. The "secondary clock" as described in beach2.htm is not a clock at all.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), July 07, 1999.

Will Continue - you certainly chose the right name. The initials fit you perfectly - WC. Which is how I shall refer to you from this point forwards. You are the biggest fool I have yet had to contend with over here - even the various guises of Outings have yet to reach your level of ignorant noise and indiscriminate idiocy.

I am amazed that your parents let you use the web at all. Grow up.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.

OK, find an expert, with some CREDENTIALS in this type of low level design/software who agrees with Beach. Martin, Kappleman et al don't count as they are not able to judge the matter, they just repeat what they have heard. Even Cory Hamasaki doesn't buy Beach's clocks.

I am willing to argue the matter, but not with Beach. He does not seem to understand what he is talking about. He is an old high level programmer. And his microprocessor patent was bought from another fellow, and is a chess game to boot.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.

Oh I see. People that do this kind of thing are nuts, but when governments do it ($23 million command center on 23rd floor in NYC, $13 million dollar underground bunker in SF, locomotive sized generators in DC, etc. etc. etc.) they are "prudent". Could you be any more stupid, Paul?

The way you wrote that makes it sound like you think governments use buried school busses for shelters. And spend tens of millions on them. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on it.

This is getting absolutely ridiculous.

If I considered it a need I would build an underground house or shelter. In fact, I have said several times over here that underground housing is superior for several reasons, mostly involving tornadic storms.

BUT - school busses are NOT suitable for underground shelters. They will rust. They may collapse. Rust may cause them to collapse without warning. They have glass windows which will cause sealing problems. Canada has a deep frost line - how much heaving can the busses take before they buckle? And I do presume the busses are heated - so how does the heat leaking out into the ground affect the frost/chill line? And the stability of the ground above and below them? I will take my chances just about anywhere, instead of Ark 2.

If you want to live in a buried school bus, go right ahead. I have seen a man buried in a collapse of a dirt embankment. I have no desire to have a similar experience.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.

Isn't it calamity enough if the experts can't clearly agree on the significance of the "Beach Bug"?

Despite what camp you fall into, you best be prepared to accept responsibility for your own actions, pertaining to your survival.

Don't assume that you have the clarity of mind and ability to accept responsibility for another individual, by arguing with professionals and self professed professionals.

MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!!!!

DON'T RISK THE IGNORANCE OF COMPLACENCY!!!

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.tg@att.net), July 07, 1999.

Paul,

See, that last post was exactly what I was getting at. Now you are even the final word on buried school busses for god's sake. Be honest Paul, what do you really know about buried busses, or any other form of underground bunkers? The whole Waco compound "armory" was a buried school bus that was working just fine, and even survived that fire. What is your real problem? Beach saying something that you just can't understand, though others do, and you getting ticked off about it? Now, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'll bet you'd love to launch an attack on that "nut" David Koresh and his Waco Wackos, huh?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), July 07, 1999.

Actually I would side with Paul

Anyone that is going to make a world wide revelation such as Bruce's "Bug" would have formatted the document so people could read it at least. Not much to ask.

With a complex problem one would want clear information. Bruce failed on that count. Actually I think Bruce was well meaning just over his head.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 07, 1999.

Hi, Gordon:

You said: "Since then, many knowledgeable people within the IT field, with credentials equal to or better than Davis, have conceded that Beach "could" be correct. That is all it takes. When other "experts" admit there is indeed a possible black hole waiting in some chips, then catastrophic failure is possible."

Could you elucidate on these knowledgeable people within the IT field, Gordon? Since Mr. Beach came out with his confusingly stated thesis on "secondary clocks", I've seen perhaps two presumably knowledgeable people step up to defend him. I do believe that both were physics professors who taught at universities, with no real experience in the field of embeddeds.

You may/may not be interested in Harlan Smith's appraisal:

Harlan Smith on the Beach Bug

There are many others who have explored Mr. Beach's credentials in this arena and found none. His links to presumed support of his original thesis proved no support at all. His experience in the arena consisted of a hand-held game.

I have no doubts that Mr. Beach is a nice person. I don't care if he prefers to spend his time in buried buses in Canada during rollover. We each must make our own decisions on what is best for us. I simply don't trust him to describe possible problems in an area in which he has absolutely no expertise. Harlan HAS the embedded system expertise. He's by no means a Polyanna, yet he DOES have embedded system expertise, and I agree with his statement that there's quite enough to worry about without throwing false information into the pot.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 08, 1999.

Anita,

Well, I guess we all get to choose our experts here, don't we. Then we can beleive which one we want and dump the others. Personally, while this matter fascinates me, I really don't care that much about it since there's nothing I can do to deal with it anyway. However, if it's important to you, just reread the Beach essays and you will find those who say "it is possible." Anita, if it's possible, you can't debunk it. It's just one of those little frustrations in life. Harlan Smith has his opinion, others have theirs. Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. If you ever have even *one minute* where you say to yourself "Well maybe, maybe, maybe, it could be true......." just stop right there. That's the begining and the end of the matter.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), July 08, 1999.