Re: sick and fucking tired of this Y2k shit

[jei@zor.hut.fi]

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Anonymous wrote:

> 
> At 12:18 PM 2/18/99 -0500, Sunder wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >Then again this insanity isn't
> >caused by the media, the media just adds more hype it.  It was caused by
> >the bad management of programmers and bad programmers pushed by ever
> >growing deadlines from marketing and VP's of nothing and the usual 
> >government programming projects bought at the lowest bidder from
> >contractors who don't give a shit and look forward to getting paid for
> >fixing bugs, but you don't much care about that, naw, you just want to 
> >fill Oprah full of holes 'cause she sensationalizes things to make
> >herself a buck...
> 
> No, what you're calling the reality of the problem, I'm calling the
> perception of the problem.  The Y2k problem, in reality, will probably
> not be that bad by the time it rolls around.  Sure, there are going to
> be unforeseen problems that crop up, but the fire and brimstone
> problems will most likely be fixed.  We're not going to be without power,
> without medical care, without money.  The major systems will be
> functional enough for the Y2k thing to be an annoyance, but not a
> complete disruption of society.
> 
> But do you think that reality matters, when the media gets ahold of
> the issue, sensationalizes it into the vision that this author gives,
> and throws that fundamentally warped picture out to the masses?  Do
> you think the masses question Oprah, or Jerry Springer, or anything
> else they see on TV?  Especially the network news, our country's
> finest in entertainment?  No.  And when people panic because of it,
> what you have on your hands is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  So
> who's responsible?  Programmers?  To say so is remarkably
> irresponsible.  That's the equivalent of the argument that gunmakers
> should be responsible when some wacko shoots someone in the
> head.

Krhm, one might also ponder about who benefits from all of this 
noise that is being created about this crisis. There are reasons
why most things are reported: Number one being the commercial 
benefit of some party.

It is just information warfare, ie advertising, propaganda, PR,
spam, or whatever you like to call it. A fight for money and power
by various parties.

Like the Y2K problem, one might wonder about all the recent
(Internet) terrorism media-brouhaha that brought billions of
dollars more money into certain governmental budgets.

_Perception is everything_ in information warfare. 

By controlling the information your adversary sees, hears, learns, and
believes, you can have incredible control of him, and indeed have him
work to your benefit, until you can no longer call him an adversary in
the real sense. Just someone who you control by giving him his
information.

Another key point in information warfare that is often neglected to
note: people believe what they want to believe. Ie a person is
continuosly seeking information that encourage his or her current
beliefs and wishes. Good news is much more easily accepted than a 
bad ones.

One thing that saddens me is that countries are still very lacking 
in their information warfare.

For example, Vietnam and Iraq. Both could have moral PR victories if
they started seriously publishing and documenting all the victims and
horror stories of the war. Market it to the world. Bring it in front
of the eyes of the American voters. Show the dead born babies. Tell
them how Depleted Uranium ammunition that the USA used in Iraq, has
poisoned the soil for hundreds of thousands of years to come, and how
it has resulted in mutated children being born. And tell, how in the
Vietnam war USA used plant poisons (Agent Orange) dropped from bombers
to kill all plant life, and how children being born today only have a
few years of life expectancy before dying of varioys illnesses caused
by the same deadly poisons, and tell them how babies are still being
born mutated or dead. Tell how the poisoned farming land is _still_
producing only poisonous foods that no sane American would ever eat.

Indeed, when the same plant poisons polluted a small area in the US,
several millions of dollars had to be used to properly clean it up.
There's one whole country that has been poisoned and that will remain
poisoned for thousands of years to come. And the Americans are still
silent, preferring to forget what they have done to an entire country.

All thanks to the US bombing them to win some ancient war, fought
several decades ago. Still, their children and their childrens
children will be born sick and die of illnesses, paying for the crime
of their ancient fore-fathers. Just what did they do to deserve this
kind of punishment? In comparison, only a biological war would be more
devastating, undoubtedly donating a new disease that would remain with
our race for millions of years to come. Is this kind of short-sighted
destruction in wars really worth it? Someone in Pentagon ought to
think a little bit about the environmental effects of wars!

Considering this, I am 100% for the Information war. More countries
should actively engage in it. For one thing, the human rights would
begin to be better respected, as adversaries would seek to publish
embarrassing acts by the adversaries. 

A nice article about information warfare can be found at the URL
below. The original site seems no-longer available. 

It's a pity that the US military has started to think more carefully
about what they put on the web. Please take copies when you see
something interesting posted and share it. Chances are that the
information won't be available for ever, and information that you 
have readily available is often your best weapon.

++ J

http://www.jya.com/af-infowar.htm

                One of several infowar articles in:
                Airpower Journal, Spring 1995
                A Theory of Information Warfare 
                ____________________ 

                    Preparing For 2020 

                Colonel Richard Szafranski, USAF