Get intimate with the Beach Bug. I have.greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
I've read the whole thing. I suggest you do too. This hot link below explains the "Beach Bug" and much more. It's long, but worth reading.
Before reading this link, I didn't take Bruce Beach seriously. Maybe it was because of his habit of signing off his emails as "peace and love, Bruce Beach". Or maybe it's because he's heavily into survivalism. Or maybe it's because noone that I take very seriously mentions Bruce Beach enough. Anyway. I think now that I should pay a little more attention. He could be on to something.
Below is Bruce Beach's email I recieved alerting me to the link above.
Y2K People Finding People - http://www.webpal.org/list.htm
I don't think Koskinen's analysis is far off about the this week's Navy report being a prime example of military readiness conservatism.
All things are possible and therefore have a degree of probability. In conventional speech these terms are bandied about somewhat strongly and wrongly.
To say that X cities will probably have failure is possibly wrongly strongly, but the events themselves are possible.
Many city managers and divisional managers such as water works managers certainly do not understand the problem nor do they have a clue about the Beach Bug.
Interesting story about the Beach Bug this week. http://www.webpal.org/Beach2.htm When I first described it there was a great outcry saying it was impossible but a number of very knowledgeable and capable computer scientists came to my defense and indeed eventually described and analyzed it even better than I had. Numbers of documented cases eventually appeared, and although one Y2K notable (Peter de Jager) called it a crock, even he had to back down in a second article and say it was "possible" - (that word again). Then he claimed to have discovered it years before himself, but discounted it for being "improbable". Oh, these words!
Anyway, to this weeks story. A fellow found a way to test for the Beach Bug and devised a device that will do so. (I am told that there is also now a competing device). The devices apparently work quite well but while they are technical solutions they are not social solutions for Y2K because of a number of factors. (They work too slowly, there is too little time to manufacture a sufficient number, to train technicians in their use, and convince installations to use them, etc.). Moreover, they sell for $32,000 a piece.
Nevertheless, they tell me that they have sold 100 to the DOD (Department of Defense). If all the figures hold that works out to three million and two hundred thousand dollars. (Be assured that I don't receive a penny of any of this). But the point of the story, (if there is a point) is that the DOD believes in the Beach Bug enough to pay out that kind of money even if I never did get called to testify before Senator Bennett's committee, as Dr. Gary North suggested (although Senator Bennett did mention the "Bench" (sic) Bug, - so much for my 15 fleeting minutes of fame).
So, was the Navy Report "real"? Yes. Is there a cover up? Yes. (The Navy PR says they are now in sync with the White House, meaning Koskinen). Will the problems in the Navy Report happen? Possibly. How probable are they. THAT - no one knows. But because they are POSSIBLE, and even if of a low degree of probability would be so serious, the Government is making through, FEMA, all Government Departments, the National Guard, the Military (and especially the Navy) the FBI and many other agencies, Governor's Conferences and Committees with the states, (and International Efforts with Foreign States) and every other resource that it can muster, innumerable efforts and preparations such as stockpiling and executive orders. Businesses and industries are being encouraged to do the same, and while many are doing things for legalistic and PR protection still billions of dollars are being spent and tens of thousands of technicians are putting in great amounts of overtime, all for what the ABA (American Banker's Association) has asked that Preachers, Priests and Rabbis preach a sermon explaining to their Congregations that it is all really just a lot of hype and Chicken Little, like a famous radio show many decades ago that had some people believing the world was being invaded by Martians.
TWO obvious Government activities. One. - Prepare as much and as fast as you can. Two. - Tell the public to stay calm. There is no problem. Do not panic. Is there a conspiracy here? Some may see it that way, others may see it as the only reasonable social policy that can be followed. Whichever. It is what is going on. Will it be enough? Hope.
BTW, the GPS rollover today, 2400 Zulu. But again, probably nothing dramatic. Lots of privately owned gear may have to be deep sixed, but probably nothing major from a social sense.
Same for the Cassini Fly By, and while I have gotten many emails this week about 999 (look at that one upside down) I know it is actually 9-9-99 and even actually 09-09-99 or even 99-09-09 or 990909, whatever, there will be practically no problems. (Have only heard of one real case so far, and that was in Sweden with the nuclear reactors - and they have fixed it).
So, the Navy Report has come (and gone?) and there was no public response of outcry. (Never even made my standard Yahoo National News).
Y2K and the weather. On a personal basis everyone talks about it but no one does anything about it. In actuality, it my own little personal test, about 20 times a week, I am astounded how most of the general public have now completely discounted it.
Still we worry (and I hope work) on. My personal plea for people to come and help prepare the Ark, http://www.webpal.org/ArkTwo/ goes largely unheeded. But there are extremes of response. Mine is obviously at one extreme, most people are at the other of do absolutely nothing. The question is - where are you?
Peace and love, Bruce Beach email@example.com
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 22, 1999
To the top.
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 22, 1999.
Thanks for posting this, Chris. We hope it is true that the device works, the DoD bought some, and they are able therefore to zap more calamities out of possibility. Time certainly is getting short. We are as ready as we can be, what with no land, $$, or space, and lots of hope ...
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 22, 1999.
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.
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.
Then comes an email which says:
"Anyway, to this weeks story. A fellow found a way to test for the Beach Bug and devised a device that will do so. (I am told that there is also now a competing device). The devices apparently work quite well but while they are technical solutions they are not social solutions for Y2K because of a number of factors. (They work too slowly, there is too little time to manufacture a sufficient number, to train technicians in their use, and convince installations to use them, etc.). Moreover, they sell for $32,000 a piece."
"Nevertheless, they tell me that they have sold 100 to the DOD (Department of Defense). If all the figures hold that works out to three million and two hundred thousand dollars. (Be assured that I don't receive a penny of any of this). But the point of the story, (if there is a point) is that the DOD believes in the Beach Bug enough to pay out that kind of money even if I never did get called to testify before Senator Bennett's committee, as Dr. Gary North suggested (although Senator Bennett did mention the "Bench" (sic) Bug, - so much for my 15 fleeting minutes of fame)."
Now, if the developers of said devices could provide the specifications of just what it is that said devices detect, then Bruce could add them to the successor to beach2.htm and say "see, that's what the Beach bug is". :-)
-- Jerry B (email@example.com), August 22, 1999.
Jerry, Thanks for your comments. Do you have a bio? Could I see it?
Beach Bug aside, the rest of the info is an eye opener.
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 22, 1999.
If by bio you mean some form of biographical summary, no; that's not "my style", but thanks for asking. I try to let my posts stand on their own merit, not my background.
-- Jerry B (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 22, 1999.